Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 991

control, N = 501

treatment, N = 491

p-value2

age

98

49.93 ± 13.20 (25 - 74)

50.03 ± 13.30 (25 - 74)

49.83 ± 13.24 (28 - 73)

0.941

Unknown

1

1

0

gender

99

0.692

f

73 (74%)

36 (72%)

37 (76%)

m

26 (26%)

14 (28%)

12 (24%)

occupation

99

0.776

day_training

2 (2.0%)

2 (4.0%)

0 (0%)

full_time

12 (12%)

6 (12%)

6 (12%)

homemaker

8 (8.1%)

5 (10%)

3 (6.1%)

other

2 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.1%)

part_time

17 (17%)

8 (16%)

9 (18%)

retired

25 (25%)

12 (24%)

13 (27%)

self_employ

4 (4.0%)

2 (4.0%)

2 (4.1%)

student

2 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.1%)

t_and_e

2 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

unemploy

25 (25%)

14 (28%)

11 (22%)

marital

99

0.692

cohabitation

1 (1.0%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.0%)

divore

10 (10%)

7 (14%)

3 (6.1%)

in_relationship

1 (1.0%)

1 (2.0%)

0 (0%)

married

25 (25%)

13 (26%)

12 (24%)

none

54 (55%)

25 (50%)

29 (59%)

seperation

3 (3.0%)

2 (4.0%)

1 (2.0%)

widow

5 (5.1%)

2 (4.0%)

3 (6.1%)

edu

99

0.636

bachelor

26 (26%)

9 (18%)

17 (35%)

diploma

19 (19%)

12 (24%)

7 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (3.0%)

2 (4.0%)

1 (2.0%)

postgraduate

8 (8.1%)

4 (8.0%)

4 (8.2%)

primary

5 (5.1%)

2 (4.0%)

3 (6.1%)

secondary_1_3

13 (13%)

8 (16%)

5 (10%)

secondary_4_5

23 (23%)

12 (24%)

11 (22%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

1 (2.0%)

fam_income

99

0.921

10001_12000

4 (4.0%)

1 (2.0%)

3 (6.1%)

12001_14000

5 (5.1%)

2 (4.0%)

3 (6.1%)

14001_16000

5 (5.1%)

2 (4.0%)

3 (6.1%)

16001_18000

3 (3.0%)

1 (2.0%)

2 (4.1%)

18001_20000

4 (4.0%)

3 (6.0%)

1 (2.0%)

20001_above

19 (19%)

9 (18%)

10 (20%)

2001_4000

15 (15%)

10 (20%)

5 (10%)

4001_6000

11 (11%)

5 (10%)

6 (12%)

6001_8000

9 (9.1%)

5 (10%)

4 (8.2%)

8001_10000

7 (7.1%)

3 (6.0%)

4 (8.2%)

below_2000

17 (17%)

9 (18%)

8 (16%)

medication

99

88 (89%)

46 (92%)

42 (86%)

0.320

onset_duration

97

14.81 ± 10.53 (0 - 56)

16.11 ± 11.46 (1 - 56)

13.43 ± 9.36 (0 - 35)

0.212

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

96

35.36 ± 14.31 (10 - 65)

33.91 ± 13.15 (10 - 58)

36.87 ± 15.42 (15 - 65)

0.314

Unknown

3

1

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 991

control, N = 501

treatment, N = 491

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

99

3.09 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

3.02 ± 1.16 (1 - 5)

0.567

recovery_stage_b

99

17.94 ± 2.70 (9 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.75 (9 - 23)

18.16 ± 2.66 (13 - 24)

0.417

ras_confidence

99

30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45)

29.62 ± 4.30 (19 - 40)

30.65 ± 5.64 (18 - 45)

0.308

ras_willingness

99

12.01 ± 2.00 (7 - 15)

11.82 ± 1.92 (8 - 15)

12.20 ± 2.08 (7 - 15)

0.343

ras_goal

99

17.48 ± 2.99 (11 - 25)

17.26 ± 2.84 (12 - 24)

17.71 ± 3.16 (11 - 25)

0.453

ras_reliance

99

13.19 ± 2.90 (7 - 20)

13.06 ± 2.65 (8 - 18)

13.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 20)

0.650

ras_domination

99

9.90 ± 2.32 (3 - 15)

10.24 ± 2.25 (3 - 15)

9.55 ± 2.37 (3 - 15)

0.141

symptom

99

30.31 ± 9.60 (14 - 56)

31.32 ± 9.83 (14 - 55)

29.29 ± 9.34 (15 - 56)

0.294

slof_work

99

22.58 ± 4.73 (10 - 30)

22.40 ± 4.25 (13 - 30)

22.76 ± 5.22 (10 - 30)

0.711

slof_relationship

99

25.49 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)

24.80 ± 5.76 (13 - 35)

26.20 ± 5.99 (11 - 35)

0.237

satisfaction

99

20.54 ± 6.93 (5 - 35)

19.08 ± 6.45 (5 - 31)

22.02 ± 7.15 (5 - 35)

0.034

mhc_emotional

99

11.14 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

10.74 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.55 ± 4.04 (4 - 18)

0.300

mhc_social

99

14.95 ± 5.52 (5 - 30)

15.00 ± 5.46 (7 - 30)

14.90 ± 5.64 (5 - 27)

0.927

mhc_psychological

99

21.99 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)

21.54 ± 5.96 (9 - 36)

22.45 ± 6.72 (6 - 36)

0.478

resilisnce

99

16.68 ± 4.53 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.12 (6 - 24)

17.18 ± 4.91 (7 - 30)

0.273

social_provision

99

13.67 ± 2.85 (5 - 20)

13.12 ± 2.39 (8 - 20)

14.22 ± 3.19 (5 - 20)

0.054

els_value_living

99

17.14 ± 3.03 (5 - 25)

16.60 ± 2.44 (12 - 22)

17.69 ± 3.47 (5 - 25)

0.072

els_life_fulfill

99

12.72 ± 3.38 (4 - 20)

11.88 ± 3.17 (5 - 19)

13.57 ± 3.42 (4 - 20)

0.012

els

99

29.86 ± 5.87 (9 - 45)

28.48 ± 4.86 (18 - 38)

31.27 ± 6.50 (9 - 45)

0.017

social_connect

99

26.55 ± 9.22 (8 - 48)

27.60 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)

25.47 ± 10.07 (8 - 48)

0.252

shs_agency

99

14.46 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

13.68 ± 4.57 (3 - 21)

15.27 ± 5.36 (3 - 24)

0.116

shs_pathway

99

16.49 ± 3.97 (4 - 24)

15.96 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)

17.04 ± 4.10 (4 - 24)

0.177

shs

99

30.96 ± 8.57 (7 - 48)

29.64 ± 8.02 (13 - 45)

32.31 ± 8.98 (7 - 48)

0.122

esteem

99

12.70 ± 1.75 (10 - 20)

12.90 ± 1.67 (10 - 18)

12.49 ± 1.83 (10 - 20)

0.246

mlq_search

99

15.10 ± 3.21 (3 - 21)

14.78 ± 3.04 (6 - 21)

15.43 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)

0.318

mlq_presence

99

13.56 ± 4.14 (3 - 21)

13.34 ± 3.59 (5 - 21)

13.78 ± 4.66 (3 - 21)

0.603

mlq

99

28.66 ± 6.47 (6 - 42)

28.12 ± 5.72 (12 - 40)

29.20 ± 7.18 (6 - 42)

0.407

empower

99

19.39 ± 4.30 (6 - 30)

18.86 ± 3.93 (11 - 30)

19.94 ± 4.62 (6 - 30)

0.213

ismi_resistance

99

14.68 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

14.30 ± 2.15 (10 - 19)

15.06 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

0.145

ismi_discrimation

99

11.47 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)

12.18 ± 2.90 (5 - 19)

10.76 ± 3.28 (5 - 20)

0.024

sss_affective

99

10.00 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

10.42 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)

9.57 ± 3.88 (3 - 18)

0.255

sss_behavior

99

9.60 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

9.00 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.129

sss_cognitive

99

8.11 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

8.60 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

7.61 ± 3.48 (3 - 18)

0.185

sss

99

27.71 ± 10.34 (9 - 54)

29.20 ± 10.21 (9 - 54)

26.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

0.148

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.16

0.166

2.84, 3.48

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.140

0.235

-0.601, 0.322

0.554

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.134

0.246

-0.348, 0.616

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.422

0.353

-0.270, 1.11

0.236

Pseudo R square

0.026

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.7

0.401

16.9, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.443

0.570

-0.674, 1.56

0.438

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.194

0.556

-1.28, 0.894

0.727

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.536

0.799

-1.03, 2.10

0.505

Pseudo R square

0.014

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.724

28.2, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

1.029

-0.983, 3.05

0.317

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.839

0.766

-0.662, 2.34

0.278

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.944

1.103

-1.22, 3.11

0.396

Pseudo R square

0.033

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.8

0.285

11.3, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.384

0.406

-0.411, 1.18

0.346

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.621

0.302

-1.21, -0.029

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.726

0.435

-0.127, 1.58

0.101

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.442

16.4, 18.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.454

0.628

-0.776, 1.69

0.471

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.405

0.503

-1.39, 0.582

0.424

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.46

0.725

0.039, 2.88

0.048

Pseudo R square

0.037

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.409

12.3, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.267

0.581

-0.873, 1.41

0.648

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.375

0.412

-0.433, 1.18

0.367

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.00

0.594

-0.161, 2.17

0.097

Pseudo R square

0.036

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.321

9.61, 10.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.689

0.457

-1.58, 0.206

0.134

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.267

0.433

-1.12, 0.582

0.540

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.45

0.623

0.228, 2.67

0.023

Pseudo R square

0.032

symptom

(Intercept)

31.3

1.352

28.7, 34.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.03

1.921

-5.80, 1.73

0.292

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.382

1.105

-2.55, 1.78

0.731

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.899

1.593

-4.02, 2.22

0.575

Pseudo R square

0.017

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.669

21.1, 23.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.355

0.951

-1.51, 2.22

0.710

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.183

0.666

-1.49, 1.12

0.784

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.127

0.959

-1.75, 2.01

0.895

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.8

0.823

23.2, 26.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.40

1.170

-0.889, 3.70

0.233

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.11

0.772

-2.63, 0.400

0.155

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.51

1.113

-0.670, 3.69

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.031

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.1

0.981

17.2, 21.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.94

1.394

0.208, 5.67

0.037

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.905

1.081

-1.21, 3.02

0.406

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.130

1.557

-3.18, 2.92

0.934

Pseudo R square

0.045

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.542

9.68, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.811

0.771

-0.699, 2.32

0.295

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.366

0.491

-0.596, 1.33

0.459

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.456

0.707

-1.84, 0.930

0.522

Pseudo R square

0.008

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.813

13.4, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.102

1.156

-2.37, 2.16

0.930

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.642

0.867

-1.06, 2.34

0.462

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.461

1.248

-2.91, 1.99

0.713

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.937

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.909

1.332

-1.70, 3.52

0.496

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.783

0.963

-1.10, 2.67

0.420

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.536

1.387

-3.25, 2.18

0.700

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.629

14.9, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

0.894

-0.749, 2.76

0.264

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.173

0.717

-1.23, 1.58

0.810

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.32

1.032

-0.701, 3.35

0.205

Pseudo R square

0.038

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.406

12.3, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.10

0.578

-0.028, 2.24

0.058

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.520

0.477

-1.46, 0.416

0.280

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.604

0.687

-0.743, 1.95

0.382

Pseudo R square

0.054

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.436

15.7, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.09

0.619

-0.120, 2.31

0.080

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.265

0.489

-0.693, 1.22

0.590

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.136

0.703

-1.24, 1.51

0.848

Pseudo R square

0.036

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.9

0.459

11.0, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.69

0.652

0.414, 2.97

0.011

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.649

0.414

-0.162, 1.46

0.122

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.337

0.596

-1.51, 0.831

0.574

Pseudo R square

0.061

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.820

26.9, 30.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.79

1.166

0.500, 5.07

0.019

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.887

0.756

-0.595, 2.37

0.246

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.144

1.090

-2.28, 1.99

0.895

Pseudo R square

0.057

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.6

1.326

25.0, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.13

1.884

-5.82, 1.56

0.261

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.12

1.176

-1.18, 3.42

0.345

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.99

1.694

-6.31, 0.331

0.083

Pseudo R square

0.033

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.705

12.3, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.59

1.002

-0.378, 3.55

0.116

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.155

0.690

-1.20, 1.51

0.823

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.608

0.994

-1.34, 2.56

0.543

Pseudo R square

0.034

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.554

14.9, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

0.787

-0.462, 2.62

0.172

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.142

0.534

-0.904, 1.19

0.792

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.179

0.769

-1.69, 1.33

0.817

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.195

27.3, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.67

1.699

-0.663, 6.00

0.119

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.294

1.120

-1.90, 2.49

0.794

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.439

1.614

-2.72, 3.60

0.787

Pseudo R square

0.028

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.227

12.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.410

0.322

-1.04, 0.222

0.206

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.108

0.319

-0.733, 0.517

0.736

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.357

0.459

-0.542, 1.26

0.441

Pseudo R square

0.011

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.456

13.9, 15.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.649

0.649

-0.623, 1.92

0.319

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.129

0.589

-1.02, 1.28

0.827

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.390

0.847

-2.05, 1.27

0.646

Pseudo R square

0.007

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.583

12.2, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.436

0.829

-1.19, 2.06

0.600

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.270

0.643

-0.990, 1.53

0.676

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.036

0.926

-1.85, 1.78

0.969

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.1

0.930

26.3, 29.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

1.322

-1.51, 3.68

0.414

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.424

1.091

-1.71, 2.56

0.698

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.400

1.570

-3.48, 2.68

0.800

Pseudo R square

0.006

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.608

17.7, 20.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.08

0.864

-0.614, 2.77

0.214

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.206

0.558

-0.888, 1.30

0.713

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.569

0.804

-2.14, 1.01

0.482

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.356

13.6, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.761

0.506

-0.231, 1.75

0.135

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.078

0.463

-0.830, 0.985

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.185

0.667

-1.12, 1.49

0.782

Pseudo R square

0.027

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.445

11.3, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.42

0.633

-2.67, -0.184

0.026

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.424

0.453

-1.31, 0.464

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.370

0.653

-0.910, 1.65

0.573

Pseudo R square

0.043

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.510

9.42, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.849

0.725

-2.27, 0.573

0.244

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.044

0.502

-0.939, 1.03

0.931

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.13

0.722

-2.54, 0.291

0.125

Pseudo R square

0.038

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.532

9.14, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.18

0.756

-2.66, 0.302

0.121

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.105

0.543

-1.17, 0.959

0.847

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.583

0.782

-2.12, 0.950

0.459

Pseudo R square

0.036

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.60

0.515

7.59, 9.61

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.988

0.732

-2.42, 0.447

0.180

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.597

0.527

-0.437, 1.63

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

0.760

-2.68, 0.297

0.122

Pseudo R square

0.041

sss

(Intercept)

29.2

1.439

26.4, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.02

2.046

-7.03, 0.993

0.143

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.533

1.325

-2.06, 3.13

0.689

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.89

1.909

-6.63, 0.856

0.136

Pseudo R square

0.043

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(145) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.32], t(145) = -0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.62], t(145) = 0.55, p = 0.586; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(145) = 1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.72 (95% CI [16.93, 18.51], t(145) = 44.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.56], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.89], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.10], t(145) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.62 (95% CI [28.20, 31.04], t(145) = 40.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.05], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.34], t(145) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.22, 3.11], t(145) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.82 (95% CI [11.26, 12.38], t(145) = 41.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.18], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.21, -0.03], t(145) = -2.06, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.58], t(145) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [16.39, 18.13], t(145) = 39.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.69], t(145) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.58], t(145) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [0.04, 2.88], t(145) = 2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.01, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.06 (95% CI [12.26, 13.86], t(145) = 31.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.41], t(145) = 0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.18], t(145) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.17], t(145) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.24 (95% CI [9.61, 10.87], t(145) = 31.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.21], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.58], t(145) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [0.23, 2.67], t(145) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.10, 1.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.32 (95% CI [28.67, 33.97], t(145) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-5.80, 1.73], t(145) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.55, 1.78], t(145) = -0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.22], t(145) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.40 (95% CI [21.09, 23.71], t(145) = 33.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.22], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.12], t(145) = -0.27, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.01], t(145) = 0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.80 (95% CI [23.19, 26.41], t(145) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.70], t(145) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.40], t(145) = -1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.51, 95% CI [-0.67, 3.69], t(145) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.16, 21.00], t(145) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.94, 95% CI [0.21, 5.67], t(145) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [0.03, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.02], t(145) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.92], t(145) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.68, 11.80], t(145) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.32], t(145) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.33], t(145) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.93], t(145) = -0.64, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.00 (95% CI [13.41, 16.59], t(145) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.37, 2.16], t(145) = -0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.34], t(145) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.99], t(145) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.54 (95% CI [19.70, 23.38], t(145) = 22.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.70, 3.52], t(145) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.67], t(145) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.25, 2.18], t(145) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [14.95, 17.41], t(145) = 25.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.76], t(145) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.58], t(145) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(145) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.32, 13.92], t(145) = 32.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.24], t(145) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-9.47e-03, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.42], t(145) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.95], t(145) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.60 (95% CI [15.75, 17.45], t(145) = 38.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.31], t(145) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.74])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.22], t(145) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.51], t(145) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [10.98, 12.78], t(145) = 25.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [0.41, 2.97], t(145) = 2.59, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.13, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.46], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.83], t(145) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.87, 30.09], t(145) = 34.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.79, 95% CI [0.50, 5.07], t(145) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.08, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.37], t(145) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.99], t(145) = -0.13, p = 0.895; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.60 (95% CI [25.00, 30.20], t(145) = 20.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.82, 1.56], t(145) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 3.42], t(145) = 0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.99, 95% CI [-6.31, 0.33], t(145) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.30, 15.06], t(145) = 19.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.38, 3.55], t(145) = 1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.51], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.56], t(145) = 0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.96 (95% CI [14.87, 17.05], t(145) = 28.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 2.62], t(145) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.19], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.33], t(145) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.64 (95% CI [27.30, 31.98], t(145) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.66, 6.00], t(145) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.49], t(145) = 0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-2.72, 3.60], t(145) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.90 (95% CI [12.46, 13.34], t(145) = 56.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.22], t(145) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.52], t(145) = -0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.26], t(145) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.89, 15.67], t(145) = 32.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.92], t(145) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.28], t(145) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.27], t(145) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.34 (95% CI [12.20, 14.48], t(145) = 22.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.06], t(145) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.53], t(145) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.78], t(145) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -8.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.12 (95% CI [26.30, 29.94], t(145) = 30.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 3.68], t(145) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.56], t(145) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-3.48, 2.68], t(145) = -0.25, p = 0.799; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [17.67, 20.05], t(145) = 31.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.77], t(145) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.30], t(145) = 0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.01], t(145) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.30 (95% CI [13.60, 15.00], t(145) = 40.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.75], t(145) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.99], t(145) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.49], t(145) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.18 (95% CI [11.31, 13.05], t(145) = 27.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.18], t(145) = -2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.46], t(145) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.65], t(145) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.42, 11.42], t(145) = 20.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.57], t(145) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.03], t(145) = 0.09, p = 0.930; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.54, 0.29], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.14, 11.22], t(145) = 19.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(145) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.96], t(145) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.95], t(145) = -0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.60 (95% CI [7.59, 9.61], t(145) = 16.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.45], t(145) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.63], t(145) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.30], t(145) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.38, 32.02], t(145) = 20.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02, 95% CI [-7.03, 0.99], t(145) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.13], t(145) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.63, 0.86], t(145) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

478.742

487.794

-236.371

472.742

recovery_stage_a

random

6

479.590

497.693

-233.795

467.590

5.152

3

0.161

recovery_stage_b

null

3

738.090

747.142

-366.045

732.090

recovery_stage_b

random

6

742.189

760.293

-365.095

730.189

1.901

3

0.593

ras_confidence

null

3

900.076

909.128

-447.038

894.076

ras_confidence

random

6

898.199

916.303

-443.099

886.199

7.877

3

0.049

ras_willingness

null

3

617.882

626.934

-305.941

611.882

ras_willingness

random

6

617.246

635.350

-302.623

605.246

6.636

3

0.084

ras_goal

null

3

756.559

765.611

-375.280

750.559

ras_goal

random

6

755.721

773.824

-371.860

743.721

6.839

3

0.077

ras_reliance

null

3

727.032

736.084

-360.516

721.032

ras_reliance

random

6

721.334

739.438

-354.667

709.334

11.698

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

674.844

683.895

-334.422

668.844

ras_domination

random

6

673.352

691.456

-330.676

661.352

7.491

3

0.058

symptom

null

3

1,059.259

1,068.311

-526.629

1,053.259

symptom

random

6

1,062.372

1,080.475

-525.186

1,050.372

2.887

3

0.409

slof_work

null

3

863.025

872.076

-428.512

857.025

slof_work

random

6

868.749

886.853

-428.375

856.749

0.275

3

0.965

slof_relationship

null

3

924.805

933.857

-459.402

918.805

slof_relationship

random

6

925.819

943.923

-456.909

913.819

4.986

3

0.173

satisfaction

null

3

993.643

1,002.695

-493.821

987.643

satisfaction

random

6

993.673

1,011.777

-490.836

981.673

5.970

3

0.113

mhc_emotional

null

3

791.692

800.744

-392.846

785.692

mhc_emotional

random

6

796.236

814.340

-392.118

784.236

1.456

3

0.692

mhc_social

null

3

928.644

937.696

-461.322

922.644

mhc_social

random

6

933.989

952.093

-460.995

921.989

0.655

3

0.884

mhc_psychological

null

3

968.626

977.678

-481.313

962.626

mhc_psychological

random

6

973.530

991.634

-480.765

961.530

1.096

3

0.778

resilisnce

null

3

863.213

872.265

-428.606

857.213

resilisnce

random

6

862.481

880.585

-425.241

850.481

6.732

3

0.081

social_provision

null

3

734.026

743.078

-364.013

728.026

social_provision

random

6

733.193

751.297

-360.597

721.193

6.833

3

0.077

els_value_living

null

3

748.824

757.876

-371.412

742.824

els_value_living

random

6

750.147

768.251

-369.073

738.147

4.677

3

0.197

els_life_fulfill

null

3

748.720

757.772

-371.360

742.720

els_life_fulfill

random

6

745.429

763.533

-366.714

733.429

9.291

3

0.026

els

null

3

925.251

934.303

-459.626

919.251

els

random

6

923.110

941.213

-455.555

911.110

8.142

3

0.043

social_connect

null

3

1,064.257

1,073.309

-529.129

1,058.257

social_connect

random

6

1,064.345

1,082.448

-526.172

1,052.345

5.913

3

0.116

shs_agency

null

3

881.489

890.541

-437.745

875.489

shs_agency

random

6

882.945

901.049

-435.473

870.945

4.544

3

0.208

shs_pathway

null

3

804.586

813.638

-399.293

798.586

shs_pathway

random

6

808.637

826.740

-398.318

796.637

1.950

3

0.583

shs

null

3

1,035.685

1,044.736

-514.842

1,029.685

shs

random

6

1,038.297

1,056.401

-513.149

1,026.297

3.387

3

0.336

esteem

null

3

566.966

576.018

-280.483

560.966

esteem

random

6

571.161

589.264

-279.580

559.161

1.805

3

0.614

mlq_search

null

3

770.957

780.009

-382.479

764.957

mlq_search

random

6

775.909

794.012

-381.954

763.909

1.048

3

0.790

mlq_presence

null

3

831.316

840.368

-412.658

825.316

mlq_presence

random

6

836.712

854.815

-412.356

824.712

0.605

3

0.895

mlq

null

3

977.803

986.854

-485.901

971.803

mlq

random

6

983.028

1,001.131

-485.514

971.028

0.775

3

0.855

empower

null

3

827.918

836.970

-410.959

821.918

empower

random

6

832.136

850.240

-410.068

820.136

1.783

3

0.619

ismi_resistance

null

3

699.132

708.183

-346.566

693.132

ismi_resistance

random

6

701.688

719.792

-344.844

689.688

3.443

3

0.328

ismi_discrimation

null

3

747.620

756.672

-370.810

741.620

ismi_discrimation

random

6

747.993

766.097

-367.997

735.993

5.627

3

0.131

sss_affective

null

3

786.855

795.907

-390.428

780.855

sss_affective

random

6

785.736

803.840

-386.868

773.736

7.119

3

0.068

sss_behavior

null

3

800.828

809.880

-397.414

794.828

sss_behavior

random

6

801.827

819.931

-394.914

789.827

5.001

3

0.172

sss_cognitive

null

3

792.447

801.498

-393.223

786.447

sss_cognitive

random

6

792.353

810.456

-390.176

780.353

6.094

3

0.107

sss

null

3

1,093.605

1,102.657

-543.803

1,087.605

sss

random

6

1,092.767

1,110.870

-540.383

1,080.767

6.839

3

0.077

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

50

3.16 ± 1.17

49

3.02 ± 1.17

0.554

0.141

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.29 ± 1.16

-0.136

25

3.58 ± 1.16

-0.563

0.380

-0.286

recovery_stage_b

1st

50

17.72 ± 2.84

49

18.16 ± 2.84

0.438

-0.202

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.53 ± 2.75

0.088

25

18.50 ± 2.74

-0.155

0.201

-0.445

ras_confidence

1st

50

29.62 ± 5.12

49

30.65 ± 5.12

0.317

-0.353

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.46 ± 4.57

-0.287

25

32.44 ± 4.53

-0.609

0.119

-0.675

ras_willingness

1st

50

11.82 ± 2.02

49

12.20 ± 2.02

0.346

-0.333

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.20 ± 1.80

0.538

25

12.31 ± 1.79

-0.091

0.027

-0.962

ras_goal

1st

50

17.26 ± 3.12

49

17.71 ± 3.12

0.471

-0.234

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.86 ± 2.85

0.209

25

18.77 ± 2.83

-0.544

0.016

-0.988

ras_reliance

1st

50

13.06 ± 2.89

49

13.33 ± 2.89

0.648

-0.170

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.43 ± 2.55

-0.239

25

14.70 ± 2.52

-0.878

0.073

-0.809

ras_domination

1st

50

10.24 ± 2.27

49

9.55 ± 2.27

0.134

0.404

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.97 ± 2.18

0.156

25

10.73 ± 2.18

-0.693

0.211

-0.446

symptom

1st

50

31.32 ± 9.56

49

29.29 ± 9.56

0.292

0.490

symptom

2nd

27

30.94 ± 7.99

0.092

25

28.00 ± 7.88

0.309

0.185

0.706

slof_work

1st

50

22.40 ± 4.73

49

22.76 ± 4.73

0.710

-0.140

slof_work

2nd

27

22.22 ± 4.15

0.072

25

22.70 ± 4.11

0.022

0.675

-0.191

slof_relationship

1st

50

24.80 ± 5.82

49

26.20 ± 5.82

0.233

-0.480

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.69 ± 5.03

0.381

25

26.60 ± 4.97

-0.136

0.037

-0.997

satisfaction

1st

50

19.08 ± 6.94

49

22.02 ± 6.94

0.037

-0.709

satisfaction

2nd

27

19.99 ± 6.26

-0.218

25

22.80 ± 6.22

-0.187

0.107

-0.678

mhc_emotional

1st

50

10.74 ± 3.83

49

11.55 ± 3.83

0.295

-0.438

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.11 ± 3.28

-0.197

25

11.46 ± 3.24

0.049

0.695

-0.192

mhc_social

1st

50

15.00 ± 5.75

49

14.90 ± 5.75

0.930

0.031

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.64 ± 5.14

-0.194

25

15.08 ± 5.10

-0.055

0.693

0.170

mhc_psychological

1st

50

21.54 ± 6.63

49

22.45 ± 6.63

0.496

-0.248

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.32 ± 5.87

-0.213

25

22.70 ± 5.81

-0.067

0.818

-0.102

resilisnce

1st

50

16.18 ± 4.45

49

17.18 ± 4.45

0.264

-0.364

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.35 ± 4.06

-0.063

25

18.68 ± 4.03

-0.542

0.040

-0.843

social_provision

1st

50

13.12 ± 2.87

49

14.22 ± 2.87

0.058

-0.599

social_provision

2nd

27

12.60 ± 2.65

0.282

25

14.31 ± 2.63

-0.046

0.021

-0.927

els_value_living

1st

50

16.60 ± 3.08

49

17.69 ± 3.08

0.080

-0.583

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.86 ± 2.80

-0.141

25

18.09 ± 2.78

-0.213

0.114

-0.655

els_life_fulfill

1st

50

11.88 ± 3.24

49

13.57 ± 3.24

0.011

-1.083

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.53 ± 2.77

-0.415

25

13.88 ± 2.74

-0.199

0.079

-0.867

els

1st

50

28.48 ± 5.80

49

31.27 ± 5.80

0.019

-0.974

els

2nd

27

29.37 ± 4.99

-0.310

25

32.01 ± 4.93

-0.260

0.057

-0.923

social_connect

1st

50

27.60 ± 9.37

49

25.47 ± 9.37

0.261

0.480

social_connect

2nd

27

28.72 ± 7.98

-0.253

25

23.60 ± 7.88

0.421

0.021

1.154

shs_agency

1st

50

13.68 ± 4.98

49

15.27 ± 4.98

0.116

-0.605

shs_agency

2nd

27

13.83 ± 4.35

-0.059

25

16.03 ± 4.31

-0.291

0.070

-0.837

shs_pathway

1st

50

15.96 ± 3.92

49

17.04 ± 3.92

0.172

-0.534

shs_pathway

2nd

27

16.10 ± 3.41

-0.070

25

17.00 ± 3.37

0.019

0.339

-0.446

shs

1st

50

29.64 ± 8.45

49

32.31 ± 8.45

0.119

-0.629

shs

2nd

27

29.93 ± 7.30

-0.069

25

33.04 ± 7.21

-0.173

0.125

-0.732

esteem

1st

50

12.90 ± 1.60

49

12.49 ± 1.60

0.205

0.324

esteem

2nd

27

12.79 ± 1.56

0.086

25

12.74 ± 1.56

-0.197

0.903

0.042

mlq_search

1st

50

14.78 ± 3.23

49

15.43 ± 3.23

0.319

-0.282

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.91 ± 3.06

-0.056

25

15.17 ± 3.05

0.114

0.761

-0.112

mlq_presence

1st

50

13.34 ± 4.12

49

13.78 ± 4.12

0.600

-0.177

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.61 ± 3.73

-0.110

25

14.01 ± 3.70

-0.095

0.699

-0.162

mlq

1st

50

28.12 ± 6.58

49

29.20 ± 6.58

0.414

-0.257

mlq

2nd

27

28.54 ± 6.05

-0.101

25

29.23 ± 6.02

-0.006

0.684

-0.162

empower

1st

50

18.86 ± 4.30

49

19.94 ± 4.30

0.214

-0.511

empower

2nd

27

19.07 ± 3.69

-0.098

25

19.58 ± 3.65

0.172

0.617

-0.242

ismi_resistance

1st

50

14.30 ± 2.52

49

15.06 ± 2.52

0.135

-0.420

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.38 ± 2.39

-0.043

25

15.32 ± 2.39

-0.145

0.156

-0.522

ismi_discrimation

1st

50

12.18 ± 3.15

49

10.76 ± 3.15

0.026

0.826

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.76 ± 2.78

0.246

25

10.70 ± 2.75

0.032

0.172

0.611

sss_affective

1st

50

10.42 ± 3.61

49

9.57 ± 3.61

0.244

0.445

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.46 ± 3.15

-0.023

25

8.49 ± 3.12

0.568

0.025

1.036

sss_behavior

1st

50

10.18 ± 3.76

49

9.00 ± 3.76

0.121

0.570

sss_behavior

2nd

27

10.07 ± 3.32

0.051

25

8.31 ± 3.29

0.333

0.057

0.852

sss_cognitive

1st

50

8.60 ± 3.64

49

7.61 ± 3.64

0.180

0.492

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

9.20 ± 3.22

-0.297

25

7.02 ± 3.19

0.296

0.015

1.085

sss

1st

50

29.20 ± 10.18

49

26.18 ± 10.18

0.143

0.602

sss

2nd

27

29.73 ± 8.75

-0.106

25

23.83 ± 8.65

0.470

0.016

1.178

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(139.30) = -0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.33)

2st

t(146.10) = 0.88, p = 0.380, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(133.30) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.57)

2st

t(145.89) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.48)

ras_confidence

1st

t(115.83) = 1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.07)

2st

t(146.97) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.52 to 4.47)

ras_willingness

1st

t(115.84) = 0.95, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.19)

2st

t(146.98) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.09)

ras_goal

1st

t(119.54) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.70)

2st

t(146.88) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.47)

ras_reliance

1st

t(113.74) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.42)

2st

t(146.72) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.66)

ras_domination

1st

t(130.98) = -1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.21)

2st

t(145.94) = 1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.96)

symptom

1st

t(107.31) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-5.84 to 1.77)

2st

t(142.12) = -1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.42)

slof_work

1st

t(113.23) = 0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.24)

2st

t(146.60) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.75)

slof_relationship

1st

t(111.15) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.72)

2st

t(145.79) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (0.17 to 5.66)

satisfaction

1st

t(117.78) = 2.11, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.18 to 5.70)

2st

t(146.98) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.61 to 6.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(110.00) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.34)

2st

t(145.05) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.14)

mhc_social

1st

t(116.16) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.19)

2st

t(146.99) = -0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.37 to 2.25)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(114.54) = 0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.55)

2st

t(146.86) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.57)

resilisnce

1st

t(119.53) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.77)

2st

t(146.88) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.54)

social_provision

1st

t(121.26) = 1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.25)

2st

t(146.73) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.26 to 3.16)

els_value_living

1st

t(118.65) = 1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.32)

2st

t(146.94) = 1.59, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(109.89) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (0.40 to 2.98)

2st

t(144.98) = 1.77, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.87)

els

1st

t(110.58) = 2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.47 to 5.10)

2st

t(145.46) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.08 to 5.36)

social_connect

1st

t(109.41) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-5.86 to 1.60)

2st

t(144.58) = -2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-9.47 to -0.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(112.63) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.57)

2st

t(146.43) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.57)

shs_pathway

1st

t(112.06) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.64)

2st

t(146.22) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.96 to 2.76)

shs

1st

t(111.11) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.70 to 6.03)

2st

t(145.77) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.87 to 7.08)

esteem

1st

t(134.54) = -1.27, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.23)

2st

t(145.90) = -0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.80)

mlq_search

1st

t(127.54) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.93)

2st

t(146.13) = 0.30, p = 0.761, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.93)

mlq_presence

1st

t(117.77) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.08)

2st

t(146.98) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.44)

mlq

1st

t(121.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.70)

2st

t(146.74) = 0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.99)

empower

1st

t(110.44) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.79)

2st

t(145.37) = 0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(128.18) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.76)

2st

t(146.08) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.26)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(114.13) = -2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-2.68 to -0.17)

2st

t(146.79) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.57 to 0.46)

sss_affective

1st

t(112.79) = -1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.29 to 0.59)

2st

t(146.47) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-3.69 to -0.25)

sss_behavior

1st

t(114.28) = -1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.32)

2st

t(146.82) = -1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.58 to 0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(114.41) = -1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.44 to 0.46)

2st

t(146.84) = -2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.42)

sss

1st

t(110.53) = -1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.07 to 1.04)

2st

t(145.43) = -2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.67 to -1.13)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.07)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(70.08) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.49)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(59.55) = 2.24, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.19 to 3.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(59.55) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.73)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(61.57) = 2.01, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.10)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(58.43) = 3.21, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.52 to 2.24)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(68.48) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.28 to 2.08)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(55.12) = -1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.59 to 1.02)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(58.17) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.44 to 1.33)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(57.08) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.01)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(60.60) = 0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.48 to 3.03)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.49) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.72) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.99)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.85) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.25)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(61.56) = 2.00, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(62.53) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(61.07) = 0.79, p = 0.868, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.42)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.44) = 0.72, p = 0.944, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.17)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.79) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.32)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(56.19) = -1.53, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.58)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.85) = 1.06, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.20)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.55) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.07)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(57.06) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.07)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(70.98) = 0.75, p = 0.911, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.91)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(66.26) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.96)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(60.59) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.57)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(62.49) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.29)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.72) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.80)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(66.66) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.64) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.89)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.93) = -2.07, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.04)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.72) = -1.22, p = 0.456, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.44)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.79) = -1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.50)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.76) = -1.71, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.12 to 0.41)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(73.10) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.63)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(68.68) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.92)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(58.92) = 1.09, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.38)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(58.92) = -2.05, p = 0.090, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-1.23 to -0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = -0.80, p = 0.853, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.61)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(57.88) = 0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.20)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(67.20) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.60)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(54.79) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.84)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(57.63) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.15)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(56.62) = -1.44, p = 0.312, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.44)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(59.89) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(56.07) = 0.74, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.35)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(59.08) = 0.74, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.38)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(58.27) = 0.81, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(60.79) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.61)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(61.69) = -1.08, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.44)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(60.33) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(56.02) = 1.56, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)

els

1st vs 2st

t(56.35) = 1.17, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.41)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(55.79) = 0.95, p = 0.692, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.48)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(57.34) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.54)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(57.06) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(56.60) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.54)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(69.52) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.53)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(65.14) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.31)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(59.89) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.56)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(61.65) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.62)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(56.28) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(65.51) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(58.07) = -0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.49)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(57.41) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(58.14) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.99)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(58.21) = 1.13, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.66)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(56.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.13 to 3.20)

Plot

Clinical significance